Europe
News and information from Europe πͺπΊ
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: Al Mayadeen, brusselssignal:eu, citjourno:com, europesays:com, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox, GB News, geo-trends:eu, news-pravda:com, OAN, RT, sociable:co, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons), archive:is,ph,today (their JS DDoS websites)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
Ban lengths, etc.
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the admin that applied the rule (check modlog first to find who was it.)
view the rest of the comments
First, scuba diver on an oil rig is a skilled job. Highly skilled.
Commercial divers must have completed a diver training program through an Association of Diving Contractors International, Inc.-accredited commercial diving technical institute or military program. Diver training programs often teach students both how to dive underwater with oxygen supplied from the surface or scuba diving equipment and how to perform construction work underwater, such as welding and rigging, as well as first aid and other skills.
Many employers require commercial divers to have an Occupational Safety and Health Administration-compliant commercial diver certification. The Association of Diving Contractors International, Inc., or the International Marine Contractors Association, offers certifications in various different diving tasks and specializations.
Commercial divers generally start as entry-level tender divers and, with experience, hours of dive time, and additional certifications, can advance to work on more complex projects and receive greater compensation.
US government publication.
I did a quick search. In 1970 the Rolling Stones did a concert in Toronto. Ticket prices were $8.00, well within reach of our waitress.
2026 tickets are $150.00.
It is a job with a lot of bureocratic red tape, but the work they actually do does not require years of study and deep understanding of a specific subject.
They also don't earn exceptionally well. The reason they can do that is because it is largely gig work that can be done 1-2 months a year easily.
Also you can't compare tickets prices of a classic band that largely caters to now well off boomers with what they charged in the 1970ties.
The $8 with inflation and all that comes to approximatly $25-30 or so in 2026 dollars, which is similar to what an entry ticket to a concert of a lesser known band costs these days. And as an occasional treat that is still affordable for low income people.
Oil rig divers need training in industrial scuba diving and underwater welding. That are two specialized skills, both usually requiring some years of training. That's not bureaucratic red tape, you simply can't do the job if you don't know how to weld underwater and are going to die if you have no industrial diving skills. This is part of the reason why they are well paid. It's a very bad example for the discussion.
I didn't say that it is an unskilled job. But once you have the necessary certifications (which don't take years, although you can get additional certifications over the years while doing the job), it is a risky but not especially complex job. The payment is according: good for a job like that, but not crazy level money.
And anyways, the point was that "regular workers" jobs still exists that allow you to only work a few months a year, but they have become more rare and hard to get, partially because of bureaucratic red tape.
The Stones were the top band in the world in 1970. Comparable with Taylor Swift today.
Not some indie group.
Not really. They were well known, yes. But they didn't have a well off fan base that could afford higher ticket prices and thus the tickets were priced accordingly.
The Taylor Swift example rather shows that there are more (somewhat) young people that can afford high ticket prices these days.
Also: I was extremely conservative with the inflation adjustment. You could probably equally well argue that $8 in 1970 is more like $60 today, as the basket to calculate inflation changed very unequally and services generally inflated much more than goods.
I love watching people use all their intelligence to ignore basic facts.
I did a quick search and the Stones came in number 3. Top band was Led Zepplin.
Tickets to Zepplin were $6.00
That completely ignores my argument.
Rock and Roll music was not something well off elderly people went to concerts in the 1970ties.
I don't know how old people got involved in this argument.
We're talking about the part-time waitress and her boyfriend.
In 1970, they could afford to go to a big concert.
In 2026, they can't.
I don't know why this is such a hard concept for you to grasp.
You compared $8 tickets of the same band to $150 tickets today. Obviously the people buying these might be still the same, but they are do not fall in the same age group or disposable income bracket anymore.
And as I have clearly shown you that there are more people being able to afford it these days, and ticket prices reflect that.
And even if that wasn't the case, the problem for that hypothetical couple is that they have to spend more on rent not that their income is smaller.
Of course you can argue that it is unfair that their income didn't increase according to the rate of GDP growth during these years, but over all they can still afford to go see that concert just like they did in the 1970ties (if they don't live in a city with high rents).
And as I have clearly shown you that there are more people being able to afford it these days, and ticket prices reflect that
So, you never understood the original argument.
The original argument was that a part time waitress would be able to afford to live pretty well in 1970, including going to a big concert and paying her rent.
Like I said, you were using all your intelligence to ignore what was right in front of you.
No, you problem is that you don't do a proper problem analysis and thus fail to understand what actually changed.
And you also seem to vastly underestimate inflation and overestimate how well such a couple was able to life in the 1970ties.
Again, you ignore what's in front of you.
I cited a work written in the period, that was reviewed and analyzed at the time.
Everyone at the time the book was written knew that our waitress could live off that salary.
It's not my fault you didn't understand that.
I explained a few times now that this hasn't changed due to the income levels, which you know is the context of this argument due to the article it was posted under.
It is very dangerous to go by vibes of what you think is "in front of you", especially if it glorifies a past that never existed like that (and no, that book likely doesn't describe it like that either). That is exactly how modern fascists fish for votes.
If you actually want to change something about the bad economic situation many low income families find themselves in these days you need to figure out the actual root cause and not just go by vibes.
t is very dangerous to go by vibes of what you think is βin front of youβ, especially if it glorifies a past that never existed like that (and no, that book likely doesnβt describe it like that either). That is exactly how modern fascists fish for votes.
Got it. I should ignore a source, written at the time, that was read and reviewed at the time, because the eyewitness account doesn't conform with your theory.
You could read the book, or talk to people who were alive in 1970, but I suspect either of those would be a little more than you'd be willing to do.
I'll keep with my factual sources and let you create whatever hypothesis you find comforting.
You evidently failed to understand what is described in that book π€·
Putting historical sources into context is a skill and comparing it to today's situation can't be done 1:1.
And how do you know I wasn't alive in the 1970ties?
And how do you know I wasnβt alive in the 1970ties?
If you were alive in the 1970's and didn't know that the Rolling Stones were one of the top acts of the time, you'd have had to be a complete idiot.
On the other hand, maybe you were alive in the 1970s.
Are you having trouble understanding what you read? I never claimed that the Rolling Stones were not a top act in the 1979ties π
The $8 with inflation and all that comes to approximatly $25-30 or so in 2026 dollars, which is similar to what an entry ticket to a concert of a lesser known band costs these days. And as an occasional treat that is still affordable for low income people.
Do I have to go back and repost the rest of the thread?
It's one thing to ignore all the facts available, but a much bigger deal if you can't remember things you wrote that same day.
This is taken out of context. Anyways, the Rolling Stones in the 1970ties were like Justin Biber in the 2010s. Top of the charts, but not very well liked outside a fan group that doesn't have a lot of disposable income, so the concerts were/are priced accordingly.
It's funny to watch you use all your intelligence to keep arguing, when you could have read the entire book, "Hell's Angels" by now.
Also, are you still trying to pretend you were around in the 1970s, or are you willing to admit that was a really dumb thing to say?
Its funny how you try to keep arguing when your point was entirely based on vibes and substantiated by nothing but make believe on your side (and a failure to understand basic economics and inflation).
You hilarious.
A book, written at the time, reviewed and critiqued at the time, is 'vibes' and 'make believe.'
You're the one who thought that underwater workers were little better than common laborers.
There hasn't been one thing you've written that was even vaguely accurate.
And when you asked how I knew you weren't around in the 1970s I literally laughed out loud.
This was never a discussion. This was you unintentionally amusing me with your half baked antics.
Farewell.
Please don't put words in my mouth which I never said nor implied.
Sadly this discussion was not very fruitful as you just ignored all the facts and misinterpreted a historical source to fit to your faulty analysis of what is actually happening. But I am not surprised as that is the usual state of things when you try to argue with facts and not vibes and make-believe with strangers on the internet π€·
I know people working as scuba divers on oil rigs that work 1-2 months a year only. This isnβt a very highly skilled job and mostly involves manual labor,
Again, you make me laugh out loud.
I was going to ignore you, but your antics are so entertaining.
Try to come up with an actual fact about anything.
I thought this is farewell? Can't have someone else get in the last comment? π€‘
Like my cat, you are amusing in a mindless way.
You try to present yourself as an intellectual, but in the end you have to rely on childish emojis because you know you can't keep up with an adult conversation.
And if having the last word means anything to you, go right ahead.
Maybe you can combine two emojis? Think you can manage that?